So, folks...

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

I want you to take a look at this footage from Polaris and Cable's session this evening. I've given you all access, even the trainees, from whom I'm particularly interested in hearing. The reason it goes black abruptly would be because someone decided that cutting power to the Danger Room was a suitable way to end the scenario. (Hands up if anyone else sees the lack of field applicability for the 'shutting off the world' tactic?) Also, I wasn't able to clean up the audio properly, so what they're saying to each other isn't always audible over the gunfire and so forth. I'll just say that they were doing entirely too much talking, from my perspective in the control booth.



1) Opinions on the approach they took? Notice that they didn't start doing serious damage to the drones until nearly the end-of-scenario. Trainees, any thoughts on why?
2) Watching the footage cold, what do you think the purpose of the scenario was? (Nathan, Lorna, no explaining.) Based on your best guess, were their tactical choices appropriate?
3) Any observations on their level of teamwork?
4) Thoughts on the powers-applications they demonstrated?
5) Look at the readings I attached on their power usage. Notice any spikes? What were the results?
6) Put yourself in the scenario with them; what would your role have been?

Keep any comments constructive, people; questions are also more than welcome, whether it's for me (since I designed the scenario) or for the two who ran it. Trainees, you especially should feel free to ask as many questions as you like, as always.

Nathan, Lorna? Whatever does come out of the conversation - and I know I can trust you to take criticism well - I'll just reiterate that you both did pretty well, especially since you're both just getting off injured reserve. I do however want self-assessments on the subject of whether or not you figured out the purpose of the scenario that I didn't mention in the initial description.

Comments

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

Hostiles are hostiles. You didn't include civilians in the scenario, so from all appearances, they took out what was trying to take them out. I'm not seeing where this isn't an obvious win.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

Hostiles are hostiles, yes. Should we generally be blowing them into their component parts?

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

If it's a "them or us" situation, yes. Looking at the numbers here - that's one hundred and seventy drones. I don't think one hundred and seventy ANYTHING are ever attacking by accident. Something tries to kill you, you kill it first, simple as dirt.

There's a reason the military teaches "shoot to kill" rather than "shoot to wound". The first is a lot more certain than the second, and causes less hesitation. You can see in the video - the moment they hesitate, things ramp up and they start to fall apart. Cable even mentioned it - training hesitation and overthinking is what gets folks hurt or killed.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

We're not the military, Cain. And like I've told Nathan every time he's growled at me over the coffeemaker on the subject, there are times that we need to overthink in the field. Even we wind up paying for it.

Going into situations with a kill or be killed mentality might be simpler, and a lot safer, but what we do usually isn't that simple. And shouldn't be.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

If it's the decision between "bring your people home alive" and "try not to kill anyone" - you choose the first over the second. Always. Anything else is poor leadership.

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

I didn't, on Youra. And I think that's one of the things Scott was trying to remind me of with this scenario.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

Then this scenario succeeded. "Your people" for this exercise were you and Polaris, both came out alive. Ends justify the means there, especially if Fearless Leader didn't give you a scenario goal.

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

One of those 'you take out of it what you put into it' scenarios, I guess.

And I think I have some thinking to do before I write up my assessment here.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

But ask Nathan - not here; I'm not that much of a bastard - if he'd make the same choice again.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't. If this was Youra, and I'm nearly certain it was, I blew up people who I wanted to save. I should have taken the injury instead of killing.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

I should have taken the injury instead of killing.

Bad line of thought to go down. What's next? "I should have died instead of them"?

Always the wrong answer. I can respect not wanting to kill - ain't no shame in it. But letting that hesitation get you hurt and injured when your teammates are going to need you at 100%? Hesitation's going to wind up getting a lot of people hurt.

Which I think is the point of a lot of these exercises. For a lot of us, it's easy to use lethal force - hell, these damn eggshell drills that Dazzler designed for me, I ain't passed a one yet. Training to use non-deadly force effectively ain't easy. It's why they don't train it in the military, it'd take too much time.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

At Youra, it was keeping myself shielded that got people killed. Also at Youra it was remaining non-lethal that got me injured. It also kept several second gens alive. I'll take that trade.

That said, the worst mistakes I made in the scenario were arrogance and then compensating for the escalation with lethal force.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

The two of you were doing a good job in the early going of minding your force levels, however, in case I didn't make that clear.